Preface

A Brief Sketch Of The Life Of Mary Wollstonecraft.

M. Wollstonecraft was born in 1759. Her father was so great a
wanderer, that the place of her birth is uncertain; she supposed,
however, it was London, or Epping Forest: at the latter place she
spent the first five years of her life. In early youth she
exhibited traces of exquisite sensibility, soundness of
understanding, and decision of character; but her father being a
despot in his family, and her mother one of his subjects, Mary,
derived little benefit from their parental training. She received
no literary instructions but such as were to be had in ordinary day
schools. Before her sixteenth year she became acquainted with Mr.
Clare a clergyman, and Miss Frances Blood; the latter, two years
older than herself; who possessing good taste and some knowledge of
the fine arts, seems to have given the first impulse to the
formation of her character. At the age of nineteen, she left her
parents, and resided with a Mrs. Dawson for two years; when she
returned to the parental roof to give attention to her mother,
whose ill health made her presence necessary. On the death of her
mother, Mary bade a final adieu to her father's house, and became
the inmate of F. Blood; thus situated, their intimacy increased,
and a strong attachment was reciprocated. In 1783 she commenced a
day school at Newington green, in conjunction with her friend, F.
Blood. At this place she became acquainted with Dr. Price, to whom
she became strongly attached; the regard was mutual.

It is said that she became a teacher from motives of benevolence,
or rather philanthropy, and during the time she continued in the
profession, she gave proof of superior qualification for the
performance of its arduous and important duties. Her friend and
coadjutor married and removed to Lisbon, in Portugal, where she
died of a pulmonary disease; the symptoms of which were visible
before her marriage. So true was Mary's attachment to her, that
she entrusted her school to the care of others, for the purpose of
attending Frances in her closing scene. She aided, as did Dr.
Young, in "Stealing Narcissa a grave." Her mind was expanded by
this residence in a foreign country, and though clear of religious
bigotry before, she took some instructive lessons on the evils of
superstition, and intolerance.

On her return she found the school had suffered by her absence, and
having previously decided to apply herself to literature, she now
resolved to commence. In 1787 she made, or received, proposals
from Johnson, a publisher in London, who was already acquainted
with her talents as an author. During the three subsequent years,
she was actively engaged, more in translating, condensing, and
compiling, than in the production of original works. At this time
she laboured under much depression of spirits, for the loss of her
friend; this rather increased, perhaps, by the publication of
"Mary, a novel," which was mostly composed of incidents and
reflections connected with their intimacy.

The pecuniary concerns of her father becoming embarrassed, Mary
practised a rigid economy in her expenditures, and with her savings
was enabled to procure her sisters and brothers situations, to
which without her aid, they could not have had access; her father
was sustained at length from her funds; she even found means to
take under her protection an orphan child.

She had acquired a facility in the arrangement and expression of
thoughts, in her avocation of translator, and compiler, which was
no doubt of great use to her afterward. It was not long until she
had occasion for them. The eminent Burke produced his celebrated
"Reflections on the Revolution in France." Mary full of sentiments
of liberty, and indignant at what she thought subversive of it,
seized her pen and produced the first attack upon that famous work.
It succeeded well, for though intemperate and contemptuous, it was
vehemently and impetuously eloquent; and though Burke was beloved
by the enlightened friends of freedom, they were dissatisfied and
disgusted with what they deemed an outrage upon it.

It is said that Mary, had not wanted confidence in her own powers
before, but the reception this work met from the public, gave her
an opportunity of judging what those powers were, in the estimation
of others. It was shortly after this, that she commenced the work
to which these remarks are prefixed. What are its merits will be
decided in the judgment of each reader; suffice it to say she
appears to have stept forth boldly, and singly, in defence of that
half of the human race, which by the usages of all society, whether
savage or civilized, have been kept from attaining their proper
dignity--their equal rank as rational beings. It would appear that
the disguise used in placing on woman the silken fetters which
bribed her into endurance, and even love of slavery, but increased
the opposition of our authoress: she would have had more patience
with rude, brute coercion, than with that imposing gallantry,
which, while it affects to consider woman as the pride, and
ornament of creation, degrades her to a toy--an appendage--a
cypher. The work was much reprehended, and as might well be
expected, found its greatest enemies in the pretty soft
creatures--the spoiled children of her own sex. She accomplished
it in six weeks.

In 1792 she removed to Paris, where she became acquainted with
Gilbert Imlay, of the United States. And from this acquaintance
grew an attachment, which brought the parties together, without
legal formalities, to which she objected on account of some family
embarrassments, in which he would thereby become involved. The
engagement was however considered by her of the most sacred nature,
and they formed the plan of emigrating to America, where they
should be enabled to accomplish it. These were the days of
Robespierrean cruelty, and Imlay left Paris for Havre, whither
after a time Mary followed him. They continued to reside there,
until he left Havre for London, under pretence of business, and
with a promise of rejoining her soon at Paris, which however he did
not, but in 1795 sent for her to London. In the mean time she had
become the mother of a female child, whom she called Frances in
commemoration of her early friendship.

Before she went to England, she had some gloomy forebodings that
the affections of Imlay, had waned, if they were not estranged from
her; on her arrival, those forebodings were sorrowfully confirmed.
His attentions were too formal and constrained to pass unobserved
by her penetration, and though he ascribed his manner, and his
absence, to business duties, she saw his affection for her was only
something to be remembered. To use her own expression, "Love, dear
delusion! Rigorous reason has forced me to resign; and now my
rational prospects are blasted, just as I have learned to be
contented with rational enjoyments." To pretend to depict her
misery at this time would be futile; the best idea can be formed of
it from the fact that she had planned her own destruction, from
which Imlay prevented her. She conceived the idea of suicide a
second time, and threw herself into the Thames; she remained in the
water, until consciousness forsook her, but she was taken up and
resuscitated. After divers attempts to revive the affections of
Imlay, with sundry explanations and professions on his part,
through the lapse of two years, she resolved finally to forgo all
hope of reclaiming him, and endeavour to think of him no more in
connexion with her future prospects. In this she succeeded so
well, that she afterwards had a private interview with him, which
did not produce any painful emotions.

In 1796 she revived or improved an acquaintance which commenced
years before with Wm. Godwin, author of "Political Justice," and
other works of great notoriety. Though they had not been
favourably impressed with each other on their former acquaintance,
they now met under circumstances which permitted a mutual and just
appreciation of character. Their intimacy increased by regular and
almost imperceptible degrees. The partiality they conceived for
each other was, according to her biographer, "In the most refined
style of love. It grew with equal advances in the mind of each.
It would have been impossible for the most minute observer to have
said who was before, or who after. One sex did not take the
priority which long established custom has awarded it, nor the
other overstep that delicacy which is so severely imposed. Neither
party could assume to have been the agent or the patient, the
toil-spreader or the prey in the affair. When in the course of
things the disclosure came, there was nothing in a manner for
either to disclose to the other."

Mary lived but a few months after her marriage, and died in
child-bed; having given birth to a daughter who is now known to the
literary world as Mrs. Shelly, the widow of Percy Bysche Shelly.

We can scarcely avoid regret that one of such splendid talents, and
high toned feelings, should, after the former seemed to have been
fully developed, and the latter had found an object in whom they
might repose, after their eccentric and painful efforts to find a
resting place--that such an one should at such a time, be cut off
from life is something which we cannot contemplate without feeling
regret; we can scarcely repress the murmur that she had not been
removed ere clouds darkened her horizon, or that she had remained
to witness the brightness and serenity which might have succeeded.
But thus it is; we may trace the cause to anti-social arrangements;
it is not individuals but society which must change it, and that
not by enactments, but by a change in public opinion.

The authoress of the "Rights of Woman," was born April 1759, died
September 1797.

That there may be no doubt regarding the facts in this sketch, they
are taken from a memoir written by her afflicted husband. In
addition to many kind things he has said of her, (he was not
blinded to imperfections in her character) is, that she was "Lovely
in her person, and in the best and most engaging sense feminine in
her manners."

TO: M. TALLEYRAND PERIGORD,
LATE BISHOP OF AUTUN.

Sir:--

Having read with great pleasure a pamphlet, which you have lately
published, on National Education, I dedicate this volume to you,
the first dedication that I have ever written, to induce you to
read it with attention; and, because I think that you will
understand me, which I do not suppose many pert witlings will, who
may ridicule the arguments they are unable to answer. But, sir, I
carry my respect for your understanding still farther: so far,
that I am confident you will not throw my work aside, and hastily
conclude that I am in the wrong because you did not view the
subject in the same light yourself. And pardon my frankness, but I
must observe, that you treated it in too cursory a manner,
contented to consider it as it had been considered formerly, when
the rights of man, not to advert to woman, were trampled on as
chimerical. I call upon you, therefore, now to weigh what I have
advanced respecting the rights of woman, and national education;
and I call with the firm tone of humanity. For my arguments, sir,
are dictated by a disinterested spirit: I plead for my sex, not
for myself. Independence I have long considered as the grand
blessing of life, the basis of every virtue; and independence I
will ever secure by contracting my wants, though I were to live on
a barren heath.

It is, then, an affection for the whole human race that makes my
pen dart rapidly along to support what I believe to be the cause of
virtue: and the same motive leads me earnestly to wish to see
woman placed in a station in which she would advance, instead of
retarding, the progress of those glorious principles that give a
substance to morality. My opinion, indeed, respecting the rights
and duties of woman, seems to flow so naturally from these simple
principles, that I think it scarcely possible, but that some of the
enlarged minds who formed your admirable constitution, will
coincide with me.

In France, there is undoubtedly a more general diffusion of
knowledge than in any part of the European world, and I attribute
it, in a great measure, to the social intercourse which has long
subsisted between the sexes. It is true, I utter my sentiments
with freedom, that in France the very essence of sensuality has
been extracted to regale the voluptuary, and a kind of sentimental
lust has prevailed, which, together with the system of duplicity
that the whole tenor of their political and civil government
taught, have given a sinister sort of sagacity to the French
character, properly termed finesse; and a polish of manners that
injures the substance, by hunting sincerity out of society. And,
modesty, the fairest garb of virtue has been more grossly insulted
in France than even in England, till their women have treated as
PRUDISH that attention to decency which brutes instinctively
observe.

Manners and morals are so nearly allied, that they have often been
confounded; but, though the former should only be the natural
reflection of the latter, yet, when various causes have produced
factitious and corrupt manners, which are very early caught,
morality becomes an empty name. The personal reserve, and sacred
respect for cleanliness and delicacy in domestic life, which French
women almost despise, are the graceful pillars of modesty; but, far
from despising them, if the pure flame of patriotism have reached
their bosoms, they should labour to improve the morals of their
fellow-citizens, by teaching men, not only to respect modesty in
women, but to acquire it themselves, as the only way to merit their
esteem.

Contending for the rights of women, my main argument is built on
this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to
become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of
knowledge, for truth must be common to all, or it will be
inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice.
And how can woman be expected to co-operate, unless she know why
she ought to be virtuous? Unless freedom strengthen her reason
till she comprehend her duty, and see in what manner it is
connected with her real good? If children are to be educated to
understand the true principle of patriotism, their mother must be a
patriot; and the love of mankind, from which an orderly train of
virtues spring, can only be produced by considering the moral and
civil interest of mankind; but the education and situation of
woman, at present, shuts her out from such investigations.

In this work I have produced many arguments, which to me were
conclusive, to prove, that the prevailing notion respecting a
sexual character was subversive of morality, and I have contended,
that to render the human body and mind more perfect, chastity must
more universally prevail, and that chastity will never be respected
in the male world till the person of a woman is not, as it were,
idolized when little virtue or sense embellish it with the grand
traces of mental beauty, or the interesting simplicity of
affection.

Consider, Sir, dispassionately, these observations, for a glimpse
of this truth seemed to open before you when you observed, "that to
see one half of the human race excluded by the other from all
participation of government, was a political phenomenon that,
according to abstract principles, it was impossible to explain."
If so, on what does your constitution rest? If the abstract rights
of man will bear discussion and explanation, those of woman, by a
parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test: though a
different opinion prevails in this country, built on the very
arguments which you use to justify the oppression of woman,
prescription.

Consider, I address you as a legislator, whether, when men contend
for their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves,
respecting their own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust
to subjugate women, even though you firmly believe that you are
acting in the manner best calculated to promote their happiness?
Who made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the
gift of reason?

In this style, argue tyrants of every denomination from the weak
king to the weak father of a family; they are all eager to crush
reason; yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to be
useful. Do you not act a similar part, when you FORCE all women,
by denying them civil and political rights, to remain immured in
their families groping in the dark? For surely, sir, you will not
assert, that a duty can be binding which is not founded on reason?
If, indeed, this be their destination, arguments may be drawn from
reason; and thus augustly supported, the more understanding women
acquire, the more they will be attached to their duty,
comprehending it, for unless they comprehend it, unless their
morals be fixed on the same immutable principles as those of man,
no authority can make them discharge it in a virtuous manner. They
may be convenient slaves, but slavery will have its constant
effect, degrading the master and the abject dependent.

But, if women are to be excluded, without having a voice, from a
participation of the natural rights of mankind, prove first, to
ward off the charge of injustice and inconsistency, that they want
reason, else this flaw in your NEW CONSTITUTION, the first
constitution founded on reason, will ever show that man must, in
some shape, act like a tyrant, and tyranny, in whatever part of
society it rears its brazen front, will ever undermine morality.

I have repeatedly asserted, and produced what appeared to me
irrefragable arguments drawn from matters of fact, to prove my
assertion, that women cannot, by force, be confined to domestic
concerns; for they will however ignorant, intermeddle with more
weighty affairs, neglecting private duties only to disturb, by
cunning tricks, the orderly plans of reason which rise above their
comprehension.

Besides, whilst they are only made to acquire personal
accomplishments, men will seek for pleasure in variety, and
faithless husbands will make faithless wives; such ignorant beings,
indeed, will be very excusable when, not taught to respect public
good, nor allowed any civil right, they attempt to do themselves
justice by retaliation.

The box of mischief thus opened in society, what is to preserve
private virtue, the only security of public freedom and universal
happiness?

Let there be then no coercion ESTABLISHED in society, and the
common law of gravity prevailing, the sexes will fall into their
proper places. And, now that more equitable laws are forming your
citizens, marriage may become more sacred; your young men may
choose wives from motives of affection, and your maidens allow love
to root out vanity.

The father of a family will not then weaken his constitution and
debase his sentiments, by visiting the harlot, nor forget, in
obeying the call of appetite, the purpose for which it was
implanted; and the mother will not neglect her children to practise
the arts of coquetry, when sense and modesty secure her the
friendship of her husband.

But, till men become attentive to the duty of a father, it is vain
to expect women to spend that time in their nursery which they,
"wise in their generation," choose to spend at their glass; for
this exertion of cunning is only an instinct of nature to enable
them to obtain indirectly a little of that power of which they are
unjustly denied a share; for, if women are not permitted to enjoy
legitimate rights, they will render both men and themselves
vicious, to obtain illicit privileges.

I wish, sir, to set some investigations of this kind afloat in
France; and should they lead to a confirmation of my principles,
when your constitution is revised, the rights of woman may be
respected, if it be fully proved that reason calls for this
respect, and loudly demands JUSTICE for one half of the human race.